Posted on 08/05/2010 6:01:30 AM PDT by Michael Zak
[by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine, CA), re-published with his permission]
For years I have admired Congressman Ron Paul’s principled stance on spending and the Constitution. That said, he really damaged himself when he blamed President Lincoln for the Civil War, saying, “Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war… [President Abraham Lincoln] did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic.”
This is historical revisionism of the worst order, and it must be addressed.
For Congressman Paul’s benefit – and for his supporters who may not know – seven states illegally declared their “independence” from the United States before Lincoln was sworn in as President. After South Carolina fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, four additional states declared independence...
(Excerpt) Read more at grandoldpartisan.typepad.com ...
And in pursuance thereof, were required to swore an oath to maintain the Constitution and the Union it defined.
There it is. The reason for the disagreement. I do do not believe that an oath to uphold the Constitution is an oath to always be a part of the union.
You mean, other than the fact that the oath requires precisely that. We're done.
At least the orangutan has opposable thumbs...
For those who "won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn" I can well imagine your feelings for America as 'nothing'. For normal people there is a lot at stake and a lot that we care about.
The reassuring thing is that we outnumber you by millions...;-)
Air Force - Of course, the founding fathers could never have anticipated a flying device, but it clearly is covered as part of the military protecting the United States. The Air Force used to even be part of the Army. My grandfather used to be part of the Army Air Corps. You have to consider the intent here.
The FDA, for sure is unconstitutional, as are most federal agencies.
Nonsense. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to "...make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution..." If the Constitution gives Congress, and not the states, the power to establish rules of naturalization then the ability to control immigration is necessary to carry out that power. Likewise, Article I gives Congress, and not the states, the power to regulate foreign commerce and enter into agreements with foreign powers. Who would be allowed to immigrate would fall under those.
You are totally wrong about this one. The states regulated immigration. Even Art. 1 Sec. 9 mentions that states get to pick who they admit. In 1824, in The Mayor of New York v. Miln,the Supreme Court said that immigration was a police matter and belonged with the states:
"We think it as competent for a State to provide precautionary measures against the moral pestilence of paupers, vagabonds, and possibly convicts, as it is to guard against the physical pestilence which may arise from unsound or infectious articles imported. (Hmmm... sounds like Arizona wanting to protect themselves...)
In 1875, in Henderson v. Mayor of City of New York, the Supreme Court reversed their decision, saying that since the shippers charge a fee for importation of immigrants, this comes under... wait for it.. the Commerce Clause. (It was the precursor of Wickard v. Filburn which says that EVERYTHING falls under the Federal Government because of the Commerce Clause.)
States were still "allowed" to control immigration up until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. After that, the federal government took over immigration piece by piece.
...kind of getting off topic though... unless we are talking about the feds illegally taking power from the states thereby promoting secession...
Why are you stuck on the Civil War? We are talking about secession now, not later. It worked against England and it will work again here.
---------------------------------------------
Yes Indeed, we happy few, are dug in, and have our squirrel guns ready.
The thought of trudging on without the South is too scary a proposition for a neo-Yankee(RINO) to handle. No, they want us to all go down the collective toilet together. No one gets out alive.
My feelings for the USA(FedGov™) and America have little in common. Since your view of the world is that of a lap dog licking the FedGov™ boots what I just said probably makes no sense to you but to my Rebel Friends - it makes total sense. There in lies the difference.
As a matter of fact, they did, and Madison in particular, in The Federalist, describes the process in No.43:
Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves on this occasion: 1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it?
The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. Perhaps, also, an answer may be found without searching beyond the principles of the compact itself. It has been heretofore noted among the defects of the Confederation, that in many of the States it had received no higher sanction than a mere legislative ratification. The principle of reciprocality seems to require that its obligation on the other States should be reduced to the same standard. A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void. Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the multiplied and important infractions with which they may be confronted? The time has been when it was incumbent on us all to veil the ideas which this paragraph exhibits. The scene is now changed, and with it the part which the same motives dictate. [Emphases in original.]
See also the additional discussion here, courtesy of FReeper rustbucket:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Timothy/baldwin124.htm
Money quote is here:
If the states in fact waived all rights to secede from the union under the Articles of Confederation, then the US Constitution is illegitimate and illegal, as not having a basis in the compact among the states to dissolve the previous compact. If the states entered into the Articles of Confederation with the expressed or implied understanding that their union would be perpetual unless all of the states consented otherwise, then nine out of thirteen states’ seceding from that union to join a new union would be just cause for a war, as Lincoln claims he was justified to force union upon the dissenting states. Alternatively, if the right to secede was waived by the “perpetual” duration and a unanimous amendment requirement, it most certainly was reclaimed and reinstituted by the US Constitution’s duration not being stated as “perpetual,” by the secession from the Articles of Confederation, and by the reservation of rights under the tenth amendment.
Ridiculous.
The Anti-Federalists were a majority in society and constituted together the Liberty lobby of their day. It was they, as I said above, who wisely insisted on a Bill of Rights, in order to "get it in writing". Unlike the merchant-oriented, profit-motivated Federalists who represented the business and shipping interests, they more than any other group represented the pure patriots of the country who put principles first. They included Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Col. George Mason, Gov. Clinton of New York, and the greatest Anti-Federalist of them all, Thomas Jefferson.
Your insult parades itself like a naked exhibitionist with terminally baggy skin. It would be offensive if it weren't such a joke.
Where did Madison say that? Are you interpolating things into one of his 1836 letters again?
The Tenth Amendment governs here, and its language about reserved powers is comprehensive and competent.
Nothing to interpolate. Madison came out and said it.
The Tenth Amendment governs here, and its language about reserved powers is comprehensive and competent.
Powers to admit states and to approve any change in status once they had joined was a power reserved to the United States by the Constitution itself.
It worked against England only following an 8 year period of unpleasantness known as the American Revolutionary War. Is that your goal this time, too?
Oh, how smoothly it rolls off your tongue, Dr. Pangloss.
Too bad it's total fantasy. You've already been corrected, and disciplined, for pushing that bagatelle.
The fallacy relies on your use of the word "reserved", which is meretricious and deceptive. Go on, quote the Article. It doesn't say what you say it says.
Your position is that only powers explicitly defined by the Constitution are granted to Congress. The Constitution only explicitly authorizes the funding of an Army and a Navy. By your definition the Air Force is unconstitutional.
The FDA, for sure is unconstitutional, as are most federal agencies.
Are NASA and the air traffic control system unconstitutional?
You are totally wrong about this one. The states regulated immigration. Even Art. 1 Sec. 9 mentions that states get to pick who they admit.
Absolute nonsense. Article I, Section 9 says that migration or importation can be prohibited by Congress and not the states. Your claim may, may, have been arguable prior to 1809 but not after it.
It would certainly have been better, but it wasn't going to happen. The intransigence of the South over the issue of slavery outweighed every other consideration at the time. It wasn't even a question of outlawing slavery, but of simply whether it would be allowed to expand. And the excesses of the Southern states, even against their own citizenry, were such as to indicate that they were not about to give it up without a struggle.You are correct.
The Founding Fathers were eloquent men.
Too bad it's total fantasy. You've already been corrected, and disciplined, for pushing that bagatelle.
By you? ROTFLMAO!!!! All we've gotten from you is your lame opinion on where it's wrong. How about presenting it for all of us once again?
The fallacy relies on your use of the word "reserved", which is meretricious and deceptive. Go on, quote the Article. It doesn't say what you say it says.
Article IV says only Congress can admit a state or approve its partitioning or combining once it's been allowed to join. Article I, Section 10 prevents states from altering their borders by a fraction of an inch without consent of Congress. Implied in all this is the power to allow states to leave altogether. Or so James Madison believed. But hey, what did he know compared to the all knowing lentulusgracchus, right?
I would surmise that if the purpose of space exploration was conquest, then it would be Constitutional. I know Ron Paul says otherwise. The FAA is a component of interstate commerce and would be regulated by the federal government. However, I would say that regulation is limited to goods and services, rather than people. That agency does a lot more than regulate interstate commerce, so I would say that a lot of their power operates outside of Constitutional authority.
Absolute nonsense. Article I, Section 9 says that migration or importation can be prohibited by Congress and not the states. Your claim may, may, have been arguable prior to 1809 but not after it.
Interesting that you mention only this part and totally ignore history and the 1824 Supreme Court decision that says that immigration remains with the states.
The first part of Article 1, Section 9 was created to regulate slave traffic in newly formed states.
Naturalization does not equal immigration. Immigration was always considered a police matter and a state right until 1875 when the Supreme Court reversed their 1824 decision and said that immigration falls under the Commerce Clause. Voila, they created a power that they never had.
The federal government loves power and will take as much as it can get. It will do whatever it can to take that power, even if they have to say it falls under the Commerce clause. There is nothing the states can do about this, so what do you propose is their recourse?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.